Hmmmm.... is there a likelihood of confusion between WIPO and IETF? When
was the last time you saw a WIPO-crat in a T-shirt with a long beard?
Seriously, those of us who are "soft" on IPR protection in cyberspace
would welcome WIPO (and anyone else) to use and appropriate common terms
without being threatened or harrassed by lawyers.
We merely wish they would extend THE SAME RIGHT to domain name
registrants.
--MM
Michael Sondow wrote:
> By using the IETF's nomenclature - calling the WIPO Report on domain
> names an "RFC" (RFC3) - WIPO is practicing the intellectual property
> theft that its report pretends to stop.
>
> Through years of devotion to the publication of Internet standards,
> the IETF has made the name of "RFC" synonymous with legitimate
> service to the Internet. Now WIPO has usurped the name of "RFC" to
> propagandize its special interests, as embodied in its
> recommendations for controlling the use of domain names. That is,
> WIPO has committed the very crime it pretends to stop: the
> exploitation of a name's significance by an entity other than the
> one that developed it.
>
> All the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the WIPO report is contained in
> this brazen theft of the IETF's invention and use of the name "RFC".
